back to article Naked scans: Net cries nude-o-geddon

The proliferation of airport body scanners will spark a flurry of low-grade porn, internet conspiracy theorists claimed last week. But officials at Manchester Airport, where full body scanning is already due to be tested, have been quick to dismiss this as urban myth. Who to ignore? A number of websites have suggested it is a …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    am I the only one

    who believes that the "pants bomber" was just a staged event by certain agencies/lobbies to get

    these nudie scanners sold?

  2. Dale 3


    This "Pants Bomber" was rather convenient for the Security Theatre industry - just what they needed to close the deal.

    Future "Pants Bombers" will still be able to get through security - they just have to object to the scanner on religious grounds and instead submit to a pat down, which is no different to what already happens now. Therefore airline security is no better off but the rest of us lose a bit more of our dignity and the security industry scores the contract.


  3. Nomen Publicus
    Big Brother

    Unlikely claim

    "Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium, so there is no scope for images to be played with in this way."

    Sorry, I don't believe you. There are good legal reasons why the images must be retained - such as a dispute between the passenger and the airport about the search.

  4. SuperTim

    Saved images....

    So nobody with a camera phone can take a picture of the screen then? is that "impossible" is it? Do they have a magic screen that cannot be photographed? I am sure they will want to stop their officers taking cameras into the booth but I bet that wont stop some of them trying.

  5. Richard Read
    Thumb Down

    Spot the lie

    >> and that no images are ever saved within the system.

    Really? Then where did the test images that we see on TV and in the press come from? And if images really aren't saved then how will they be used as evidence?

  6. John H Woods

    Nudity is not automatically a privacy violation

    Who needs to see fuzzy solarised images when full colour, full screen full motion video of much more attractive people is readily available?

    Excluding kids under 18 is ridiculous ... it just means that terrorists will use minors to get stuff onto planes. Either everyone gets scanned ... or has a chance of getting scanned ... or the system is worthless.

    All they need to do is make sure there is no image capture and vet the machine operators. Maybe they should all be registered nurses, for instance.

    1. Anonymous Coward


      "Maybe they should all be registered nurses, for instance."

      Yes, because what the medical profession needs right now is a shortage of trained professionals as they all go off and look at nudie-scans at airports. Let's bulk up the civil service, too, while we're at it - after all, the country can easily afford it. Strewth!

  7. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    But do they work?

    Should we be asking if the damn things actually work first?

    I find it very hard to believe that anything out there would stop any competent organization or individual from actually blowing up a plane if they really wanted to do it.

    What actually keeps us safe is that only insane people want to blow themselves up in planes and the nutters are very very rarely competent.

    On the other hand there's a lot of money in Security Theater.

  8. Andy Johnson
    Thumb Down

    How soon before our right to Privacy is completely eroded away?!

    Who watches the watchers ? Who makes sure they are following the rules ? Would you trust them ?

    And if children are not to be scanned (which I fully agree with), what is the point of the scanners ? Terrorists will just send kids through with explosives.

    This is just the next attack on our privacy in the name of security. I agree security is important but there has to be a better way ?!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    There's a shortage of low grade fuzzy porn?

    This is a national crisis the like of which we have not faced before. There must be an immediate high-level Government enquiry and we must immediately break out the emergency MPEGs.

    In this time of our greatest need, none shall go wanting for hand shandy material.

    Paris, obviously...

  10. Dave Bell

    Obvious arse-covering solution

    Tinfoil underpants

    Should be on issue to all politicians already.

    (I do hope they're not trying to sterilise the hoi-polloi)

  11. My Alter Ego

    Government contradiction at it's best.

    "Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium, so there is no scope for images to be played with in this way."

    This directly contradicts a statement by a Manchester Airport spokesman in a Grauniad article:

    "Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted."

    So which is it, are the streamed to a screen with no recording function or are they stored temporarily. If it's the latter, then we can assume that it'll be done in the most half assed way possible as per Government guidelines.

    Personally I'm really not bothered about the idea of these scanners and think the child pr0n argument is a load of bollox. However it's nice to see the "War against Terrorism" collide spectacularly into "Think of the children". What does happen when an unstoppable force meets an unmoveable object?

  12. Craig 12

    Surely it's crossed their minds...

    A cheapo digital camera or phone will easily grab these images off the screen. Better yet operators, search ebay for spy camera, job's a good 'un.

    Can el reg get a competition going to name the website that will host all these images? (

    As for the matter of under 18s, this is where all that 'think of the children' legislation has got us. Even police-screened security personnel that are protecting us from terrorists might still be peados, and for some reason it's illegal to see a human being in their natural state.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Actually I think this is a damn fine idea...

    ...I just remember to change my underwear more than once a week!

    Paris, because she doesn't wear any!

  14. \\\

    I don't understand

    If these scanners produce indecent images of under 18's, then the produce indecent images of everyone. If by not scanning 17year 364day olds and younger, the government are admitting there's a privacy issue.

  15. regart
    Big Brother

    Already planned

    It should be noted that in September 2008, the Telegraph reported in an article entitled "EU to introduce 'virtual strip searches' at airports by 2010", that Britain (along with the rest of the EU) were required to have these body scanners installed by April 2010. The 'pants bomber' is the convenient excuse to gain public support of these scanners.

  16. Iggle Piggle

    I'll bet the kiddy fiddlers are withdrawing their job applications right now

    But seriously. Why should children under 18 be exempt from security scans. Are the terrorists so stupid that they would never think to get a false ID that gives them an age of 17. Obviously in narrows the selection process down a bit because some 30 something would be suicide bomber is never going to pass as 17.

    But even supposing you could not find a terrorist that passes for 17, who is to say that these people are not so desperate as to use their own children as walking bombs.

  17. Mark Roddis

    This is great

    As I approach my 40th birthday this really helps my self confidence.

    Just when I am thinking that I am past my prime I find that not only does my government want to see me naked and even take pictures but that there may even be a market out there for this kind of thing.

    So now I am feeling great about myself

  18. JohnG

    "....will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18"

    Given that children have been used as suicide bombers in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the body scanners are rendered ineffective such a policy.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No save ?

    According to CNN....their is a save capability.

  20. Wommit
    Paris Hilton

    And how...

    ... are we to discover this low level smut among all of the high grade glossy smut currently whizzing round the intrawebs?

    And why would we bother?

  21. Winkypop Silver badge

    I look forward to

    1. eJ2095


      Quick register that domain name lol

  22. Stef 4

    Won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!

    "will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18."

    Oh well, can anyone else imagine how old the next bomber is going to be?

  23. rob1971


    I would imagine that most members of the public would be comforted if they were able to view the live images the scanner was producing whilst they were actually in it, rather than the images being available solely to the security staff.

  24. Anonymous Coward

    Missing word:

    YET !

    There is simply no potential for images captured by the scanners to be reversed YET.

    "Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium YET"

    "airport will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18 YET"

    But then again, there is no way of matching CCTV data to the Uber database - YET.

    Blair / Brown wet dream

    One database, with your all your details, footage of your movements, your car movements history (inc footage), high res images of you in the buff.

    Not possible YET, but only becuase of a lack of funds....

    Of course it's to protect us from terrorists & crime.

    10 years ago, saying all your movements in public would be tracked by cameras, would be considered as paranoia, fast forward to now?

  25. King John


    under 18 not scanned? Sweet, lets start recruiting disaffected 17 year old muslims instead!

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Please, when you write about "scanners", tell us what the technology is. Does it irradiate the victims, or is it purely passive/receptive? Also, if people are going to be irradiated with X-rays or whatever, will they explain what they are doing and ask permission first, or will they just herd people through them?

  27. irish donkey
    Thumb Down

    As if airport security needed more reasons to act....

    like complete wankers.

    But on the plus side it will be easy to find all the Pedo's now. Just arrest the freak checking out your kids on the x-ray camera.

    Will I be able to complain to somebody if I spot the guy has a boner after perving children with his x-ray camera? Obviously I won't be able to complain at the time because the guy would just accuse me of being a terrorist and subject me to an internal investigation.

    This Government has to go.........

  28. Def Silver badge

    Now if only...

    ...the scanners could be adjusted to show if someone's full of shit or not.

    Maybe having a clear scan should be a prerequisite for running for government office.

  29. Anonymous Coward

    The Paedophiles Are Applying

    The reality is that every paedophile in the country is busy preparing their CV for any and every vacancy in security at UK airports.

    Very recent experience has shown us that social work departments and child care and nurseries are prime targets with very sophisticated and successful infiltration going on all around the country in order to gain access to children. In many ways, they have a much greater record of success than the terrorists have had.

    Fuzzy images or not, the whole body scanners are an absolute dream come true and an opportunity they will not miss.

    US reports confirm that the scanners do capture and can send images - the denials are just being made to try and avoid some of the criticisms of a poorly thought out and ill conceived piece of security theatre.

  30. Thomas 4


    "However, that doesn't mean that the introduction of full-body scanners - particularly with regard to younger travellers - isn't going to raise some uncomfortable issues; not least for Gordon Brown."

    Or indeed the poor bastard watching the nude-ray as Gordon Brown passes through customs. Mine's the one with the lead-lined glasses in the pocket, thanks.

  31. iworm

    Yeah, but...

    While I hate the idea myself, one has to wonder that IF you're going to do the whole nekkid scan thing, then surely you do need to keep the pictures?

    - Person sues for abuse. Authorities need to go "Look - that's why we orifice-searched you"

    - Bomber gets through (as they surely will) Authorities need to go back and see how they got through scanner undetected.

    - etc.

    I oppose the whole idea, seeing how it is all security theatre anyway. But if not day one (to avoid the hoohah) I have no doubt at all that scans WILL be kept. To not do so would be illogical.

    I get me coat... oh hang on, no need - they can see through it.

  32. Fred 1

    Ghost porn

    There is so little pron available on the internerd featuring young horny models that I am desparate to obtain some fuzzy negative images of fat middle aged women.

  33. Anonymous Coward

    Somebody needs to tell 'stalin' brown

    That the terrorists have won.

    Given a terrorist is someone that wants to annoy and disrupt a society by affecting the military, politic, infrastructure or econominc processes.

    Then our so called government have done more to help the terrorists, than any terrorist campaign. The IRA must be kicking themselves at how easy it has been.

    1. J 3

      IRA's mistake

      Giving the previous few years history, IRA's mistake seems to have been not attacking the USA. If they wanted to destroy freedom in the UK, they should have attacked the USA -- that's that the islamofascists have shown, maybe unintended. Then America's copycat (or would that be lapdog?) would do (did) exactly as their masters and go paranoid, etc. etc. etc.

  34. Paul Hates Handles

    Double standards...

    If they're not scanning the naked bodies of anyone under the age of 18, then they're basically saying "Yes, we know we're looking at something we shouldn't and are invading their privacy so we can't look at kids naked."

    If it's so harmless they can check out naked kids too. I mean it's not sexual, is it - they're practically doctors. Nobody ever stole or lost data, nope.

    And certainly no terrorist or bomb carrier was ever under 18, or carried a bomb because his family were threatened.

  35. Filippo Silver badge


    So, they won't be used on kids. Isn't this like an admission that these images can be considered to be pornographic? And isn't it illegal for someone to use my image in pornographic material without my consent, even if I'm an adult?

    So, pick one. Either it's not porn, in which case it can be used on minors as well, or it is, in which case it shouldn't be used on anyone without their consent.

    Me, I'm leaning towards the third option - there is no logic, because it's yet another totally irrational measure in a totally irrational approach to terrorism.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    4chan anyone?


    enough said.

  37. MinionZero
    Big Brother

    Strip Searched...

    Looks like we need to effectively add being Strip Searched to the list of our lost rights.

    The irony is if someone is determined to kill themselves (and others) then sadly history shows they will always find a way, no matter how much of a Police State we create to try to stop them and in the mean time, history shows the Police State causes far more social hardship and suffering for everyone than just one suicidal arrogant bullying terrorist. Also we didn't have this Police State back when we had to suffer the IRA, yet for the most part, life just continued and people just got on with their lives without problems.

    So where is this Police State going to end, now even strip searches are being added to the list? (If any of us could travel back in time even just 20 years, to tell people about now, no one would believe a description of the world we have now. Makes me wonder where its going. What is unthinkable now, that won't be in another 20 years at this rate).

  38. Greg J Preece

    So hang on a minute

    They claim that the images created are not pornographic, but then decline to scan anyone under 18 in case they're done under child porn laws?

    How does that work then?

  39. Mike Street

    Straw Man

    Congratulations - you've demolished a straw man.

    The pictures are not invasive now, but then they are only, according to the Govt., 60% effective. They will become more detailed, so as to be more effective. Nothing much under 99% effective is really any use - letting 2 out of 5 bombs through is hardly progress.

    The ban on keeping images will last precisely as long as no-one gets a bomb through. Once they have, the gutter press will demand to know why the scanners didn't work. If no images are kept, no-one will know why, so the next identical bomb will also get through. So images will have to be stored permanently. And it will be necessary to retain the identity the subject of each one, to enable checking.

    Once they are stored, along with an identifier to the person scanned, how long before they leak?

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    under 18s

    I wonder how them that's in power will sleep after the first attempted bombing by a child (are 17year old's really children?)

    Forced into this because "think of the chilllllldrun" created a unique op for them to be abused by them that "don't think of the chilllllldrun"

  41. Petey

    As they say...

    Who will watch the watchers?

    I fully expect to see some of these images floating around the net at some point during the next year, with a seedy voyeuristic theme.

    Any images I find will be forwarded directly to the PM and posted on as many websites as I can find, just to make it clear that I do not agree with a PFY staring at this kind of "fuzzy smut" of everyone's grandmothers.

    Surely computers could be trained up on this instead??

  42. caffeine addict

    Inverting an inversion...

    If you go down the comments on that Prison Planet post, it looks like the "airport inversion" is a fake. Someone found an eerily similar photo of the same girl in the same pose, just without the fabric outlines... [NSFW]

    1. Doogs


      Thought the image was a fake soon as I saw it, just from the shadows under her breasts. Wouldn't have thought x-ray backscatter could create shadows in that way.

  43. Anonymous Coward

    Are you the problem?

    We don't need these scanners. We have never needed these scanners.

    Nor do we need the ID cards, ID database, mandatory RFID chips on our vehicles.

    We do not need CCTV, constant telephone, email and web snooping.

    We do not need treaties that subjugate use to the whim of foreign powers.

    Get down to the ballot box and vote.

    Don't give me that "They're all the same" shit, that just makes you part of the problem (as well as being reprehensibly pathetic). If you truly believe that, then stand yourself. I guarantee you that you are not alone. And if the idea of getting off your own lazy arse fills you with terror, then at least support someone else who was brave enough to do something, not just sit on their couch and moan, moan, moan.

    The next time you walk past a war memorial, think to yourself "What did they die for?". If you let the state carry on cutting our freedoms the way they are, I'll tell you the answer to that one: nothing. Their deaths will be meaningless and you will have made them meaningless through your own inaction and procrastination.

    Vote, protest, resist; or watch your country die before your eyes.

    1. MinionZero

      @AC and the abuse of political power

      I totally agree we don't need these relentless violations to our privacy, liberty, dignity and freedom. This "naked scans" technology is beyond anything I could ever have imagined possible even just 10 years ago, yet its just one of a vast array of violations the control freaks are forcing on us all. I'm utterly dismayed with how my country is being undermined and centuries of history wiped out. The results of so many fights for freedom and liberty from arrogant state control freaks are now wiped out in a matter of years.

      However your kind is part of the problem. You cannot and will not solve this problem via elections. It simply will not work no matter who you vote for. That isn't a call to do nothing and it isn't a call for a revolution and that isn't a call to "sit on their couch and moan, moan, moan". There is a vital middle ground. Its called free speech and don't *ever* over look the importance of it. Millions throughout history and around the world have died to protect it for very good reason. Its not just one person speaking. When a million or more people speak together, then every government has to listen. (Now think whats possible with the Internet). Only freedom of speech can push back against the people in power, to provide a feedback mechanism to limit their excesses. Thats its point. It creates a vital feedback mechanism in society to limit the control freaks excesses. You can't just vote in any party and then let them get on with it. Thats a society without feedback and it aways runs out of control, just like a machine loosing feedback aways fails. Plus don't ever believe free speech is weak. Thats what politicians want people to believe, because they don't want people to stand together and against the people in power. They want everyone to believe you are all powerless to stop whats happening and they want us all to see them as the only answer to all problems. Well they are not. They don't listen even when they say they do. They are all out for themselves. Its all part of their two faced act to get what they want, which is power, (and personal gain from that power) then time, after time, after time, we see the same pattern, whoever gets in, they go off and do their own thing and create ever more social problems, for the vast majority of people, until finally, everyone gets so bloody sick of whats happening, they throw out the current party and then get another lot in, who repeat the same cycle of abuse of the majority of people.

      Its time to end the cycle of abuse and knowledge is the only way that will ever be broken, because knowledge is the only thing that will stop people blindly trusting the Narcissistic, arrogant, self righteous, lying, two faced people who always seek power over others. (Narcissistic as in literally Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is why they are so relentlessly driven to need power over others, no matter what they say they want that power for). Its time to end their abuse of the majority of people.

      Knowledge is power and free speech is the only way to spread knowledge. The politicians know people standing together can oppose them, that is why the Narcissistic power hungry control freaks so fear the Internet and want to control it, because never before, have so many people had the power to join together and speak out. That is extremely powerful. It can totally transform society and for the better for a change.

      Also what is happening now is the country is shifting towards the far right parties. That is bloody scary and bloody dangerous because give them a few months in power and everyone will start to see the error of voting in any group like them. History has shown this time and time again, but then history is also knowledge and free speech is the only way to spread that knowledge. Some trusting fools don't see the danger. They have never experienced the danger and can't see how bloody bad the far right parties would be and thats before you even add in the extra danger we now have of them being given the Police State powers that have already been put in place for the next party. We need to end the cycle of abuse, not make it worse.

      The Internet is extremely powerful but we are in danger of that turning into part of the problem, rather than being part of the solution. Its time to stop trusting *any* of the arrogant control freaks who want power over us regardless of which party they are in and for us all to police them all, every minute of every day, because they cannot ever be trusted with unquestionable power ever again. Society has stopped policing them. News media is fragmented. Viewers of the news in all forms of media are fragmented. Its Divide and Conquer against us all. Society is fragmented by so many news outlets resulting in the vast majority of people failing to see and hear of the major events that are going on in politics, which is exactly what the people in power want, because then the majority of people cannot stand together in great enough numbers to stand against the politicians actions so they are getting free to act as they like. Only through force of numbers will we ever be able to police the people who are given power.

      This whole election to solve whats happening argument, totally overlooks a fundamental flaw in democracy, which is democracy can be totally wiped out once all the parties you can choose from have the same core motives. Which is exactly what we have (and have always had in some form). At a fundamental level the very act of seeking power over someone else therefore inevitably means forcing them to conform to the wishes of the person with power. Its an inherently unfair act of control. The problem is everyone in politics seeks power over others, resulting in this continuous push towards an ever more Authoritarian control. Worse still, Authoritarianism always slides into Totalitarianism when freedom of speech is increasingly repressed as it is now.

      Therefore the election myth we are sold, acts like a means to fool us all and placate us as a population into thinking we have a choice in the matter. *we don't* the people in power do so they need to be policed. The more I've realized whats really going on, the more I've seen this destruction of privacy, liberty, dignity and freedom isn't going to be solved by elections. Only freedom of speech can push back against the people in power to provide a feedback mechanism to limit their excesses. The Internet is vital in this role. Without free speech, we slide into an utter nightmare as we are doing now.

      The political exploitation of technology is destabilizing society, because its giving the relentless control freaks ever more power to bias society ever more in their favor. We need to fight that and elections will not stop the way technology is being abused. There has to be limits set. The abusers have to be forced to limit their actions, or we force them back with technology to force policing on their actions. Free speech is vital.

    2. J 3
      Big Brother


      "The next time you walk past a war memorial, think to yourself "What did they die for?""

      I know the answer to that one: 99% of the time, they died to protect their country's rich people's revenue, that's all -- from the feudal lord's troops of servants (and before, of course) to today's armies, all the same. That's what nearly all wars are about, one way or another, even when you think of a resistance fight.

      What, cynic, moi?

  44. John 29

    Hot or not?

    Maybe these images could go on a new version of Brings new meaning doesn't it?

  45. Hollerith 1

    it's not the screens I'm worried about

    But the people watching throse screens. Airport security hiring practice is a bit of a joke, with a low but constant level of stories about unsuitable people found to have been hired by airports (baggage handlers, etc.) All you need is one person with a squeaky-clean record to be suborned (suitcases of money), or blackmailed (by something in his/her life that isn't a security risk, but which he or she is desperately ashamed of), or threatened ('we know where your wife works...) so as to have them on shift when your colleague, the terrorist who knows a little more about explosives than our dear Pantsbomber, is going to be walking past the scanner.

    Or, of course, let nature take its course, with tired, over-working, bored, under-paid, demotivated security staff finally so nauseated by lardy passengers that he or she simply glazes over to the point where someone in a semtex catsuit can hula past the camera and not be spotted.

  46. MaskedAnkle

    Electric Six

    The theme tune for this article should be "Naked Pictures Of Your Mother" by Electric Six.

  47. PaulK

    Get a grip!

    I am well hacked of with this hysteria.

    The body scanner is a useful tool for passenger screening, but it is not the panacea some politicos and megalomaniacs have suggested. Combined with explosives sniffers (canine variety included) and passenger profiling, we could create a smooth and mostly hassle free security process. I am afraid that the rubber glove search has not been replaced so if you are Iqbal from Islington, you should bring a change of underpants. This is not racist - it is a fact that Iqbal is more likely to be a threat than Granny from Grantham. And if you are Nigerian with a recent Yemeni stamp in your passport - forget it.

    There are those that say that it is illegal to scan under 18's because this constitutes "making an obscene image" of a minor. Some are worried that the operators might be kiddy fiddlers even though they all have to have the same CRB check as teachers and swimming instructors (OK this only proves you haven't been caught...)

    And then there are those that argue the use of these devices constitutes an invasion of privacy - OF COURSE IT DOES - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT - but it is not a breach of your human rights! What is worse? A virtual strip search or an actual strip search?

    Get a grip people and lets have an outbreak of common sense. To those who feel threatened by racists, paedophiles and losing their privacy, remember this: you don't have to fly. The majority of the put-upon law abiding passengers who suffer all this in silence,if not gladly, have the right not to be blown up in mid-air or crashed into a building.


    to all those bumbling idiots who take 10 minutes to divest themselves of coats, laptops, boots, belts, phones, money, chav jewelery, etc., at the baggage xray and then still set the arch off, I despise you with all my heart.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Common sense?

      You are talking about common sense in the same breath as supporting these monstrosities?

      One is orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by lightening than a terrorist act. Common sense dictates that the government should fund person lightening conductors as THAT WOULD SAVE MORE LIVES!

      The one thing you cannot have if you support these machines is any kind of common sense!

    2. Richard Read

      Re: Get a grip!

      >> Combined with explosives sniffers (canine variety included) and passenger profiling, we could create a smooth and mostly hassle free security process.

      We could but we won't.

      This is just going to another massively expensive exercise in security theatre that does nothing to improve real security and makes travelling even more of a hassle than it already is.

      This is all about appearing to do something about the miniscule threat of being blown up on a plane to appease the press and I find it hilarious that it has run aground on another unnecessary legal reef that is "think of the children".

      Lets face it - improving real security is hard - pandering to the press with soundbites is easy.

    3. Anonymous Coward

      Get stuffed cretin!

      Oh dear, a big wedge of the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!" pie been eaten has it?

      Sorry but we do still have some very small amount of rights and the right some common human decency is one of them. We're not all exhibitionists like you sir, always ready to wop out the tackle on demand, some of us retain some morals and dignity we were brought up with. My Doctor has to ask permission to view the "old-man", I would expect the same consideration from a bunch of neanderthal, knuckle-draggers working at airport security. I bought a travel ticket to go somewhere, I did not sign up to privacy invasion of the most humiliating form!

      The reason I refuse to fly anywhere now, I refuse to be treated like a criminal. I can stay at home and get that by simply taking pictures of buildings in any major UK city!

    4. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Get a grip

      >it is a fact that Iqbal is more likely to be a threat than Granny from Grantham

      What about a Gerry from Belfast?

      Or a Richard (Reid) from Bromley?

  48. Anonymous Coward

    Why not save?

    The images must be kept in case there is an issue.

    If a plane goes down for some unknown reason the images can then be rechecked to eliminate suspects.

    As long as that information is not automatically attached to the ID database or even given to anyone else unless there's a problem, and not stored with the name attached then I fail to see the problem.

    It's not like scanning ID when going into clubs where the information can be used against you.

    What use is a blurry image of my cock to anyone? And if that really turns them on then I fail to see how that affects me in any way - the camera hasn't stolen my soul and then they in turn are jizzing on my soul or something

    1. Tom Chiverton 1

      'rechecked to eliminate suspects'

      But the scanners can't actually see explosives, liquid or otherwise...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not yet anyway!

      Dont you worry sir, that will happen all in due course, once the grumbling public is happy with this invasion of privacy, they will find a reason to sanction the next...

  49. Paul_Murphy
    Black Helicopters

    One solution.

    Nobody flies.

    Stay at home for your holiday (or drive, go by boat), find another company to deal with that involves no flying, spend that money on something else.

    No customers == ?

    I don't know, but I suspect that profit for the airlines would not be part of the picture.

    Of course that could be what they want you to do :-)


  50. Andy Johnson


    I think one of the underwear manufacturing companies should produce underwear with some kind of metallic weave.

    There could be a whole metallic weave market for t-shirts, shorts etc..When everybody is wearing them, what use will the scanners be ?

    1. Just Thinking


      I wouldn't want to be the first person to try it. The likely response is fairly predictable.

    2. Oninoshiko

      as posted in the anti-emf-nutter article...

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    body fat

    energy content of body fat: ~40 MJ/kg (Journal of Nutrition Vol. 127 No. 5 May 1997, pp. 943S-947S)

    energy content of dynamite ~ 7.5 MJ/kg (wikip)


    non-thin person + novelty SF catalyst = bomb

    Scan for that, Gordon!

    1. umacf24


      otherwise you got one of those Spontaneous Human Combustion stories....

  52. Anonymous Coward

    Your daughter?

    Would you let your 15 yo dau go through one of these? Mine flies regularly to Florida to see Granny, not sure I'd want her image, however blurred, being starred at by men who deliberately chose this as a career path.

  53. Mike Hanna

    Unconsidered nonsense

    I have no problem with these scanners. No sensible person wants to see a fuzzy bluey-green picture of me with my button-mushroom c0ck on show, though no doubt it will at some stage end up on the internet. I am worried though by the government's reaction...

    What happens when terrorists realise that their cemtex y-fronts will be discovered and they start shoving the C4 up their ar$es? Will the government's knee-jerk reaction be that we all get treated to an anal probe for the good of the security of the country? Perhaps the PR people will say we're all being entitled to a free prostate examination, whether we are male or female. Or will they be able to turn up the intensity of the x-rays to check to see when I'm next due a bowel movement, and what it will consist of. What would be happening to my testicles being bombarded by x-rays? Will some people have an allergic reaction and go Hulk? Surely that's just as dangerous as some idiot stabbing himself in the pants with a biro?

    At least Obama has a reasonable response, slagging off the US's own airport security, recognising that the immediate rush to have (probably) hundreds of millions of dollars stumped up for these scanners is knee jerk, and that the pant's wearing would-be martyr could and should have been found using all the other information they had on him.

    Grenade, cos there's surely someone somewhere on the internet with one of these up their hoop to prove my point...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Good idea actually.

      To be fair, this would seem like a good vector to go down, I mean we all know how much drug smugglers can put inside them. 9 hour flight and a handful of laxatives would ensure a good kg or two of condom wrapped explosive whatever would be in the hands of said terrorist.

  54. Stef 2

    Inevitable, really

    I await 'proof' of Lady Gaga's penis.

  55. Schultz


    How about the alternative: Ge used to nudity and fly naked. It would definitely deter the prudish jihadists and there won't be need for any expensive scanning equipment at the airport.

    Problem solved.

  56. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Government lies again, film at eleven

    I hadn't noticed, but it is quite evident that the pictures shown are your basic picture inversion and therefore easily undone. This is not surprising: Most of the "security measures" in the security circus are of the same kind: extremely basic, predictably ineffective. Given that these machines are full of complex high-tech processing power, the government claims that gaining electronic access to the full monty in all its glorious hi-res picture goodness is somehow "impossible" I find laughably unbelievable. In fact, so much so that comparisons in believability to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf come out in favour of the latter. Carry on government.

  57. Sludge

    Or alternatively...

    ... just have 2 sets of scanners, one for the blokes, stared at by men, and one for the ladies (oo, er, missus), staffed by woemn.

    1. Anonymous Coward


      Why not have two airports: one for men, one for women? Oh wait, we were talking about Britain, not Saudi Arabia!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: Segregation

        I've flew from Bristol International Airport last year and the X-ray/metal detector arch queues were all being segregated into males and females by some iron maiden, battle-axe of an old hag who did nothing but shout, "Men to my right, women to my left" nothing more than that. I was quietly bemused but proceeded as *ordered* as it didn't really make any difference to me which arch I walked through.

        Just a few people behind me were an elderly couple slowly making there way, arm in arm, towards the arches, having clearly not taken any notice of the hag they proceeded, together, arm in arm towards the most convenient arch, "MEN TO MY RIGHT, WOMEN TO MY LEFT!" startled and clearly confused it wasn't until I (bravely) back tracked back towards the queue, instinctively apologised out of embarrassment at being the same species as the hag and calmly, pleasantly explained that they'd simply brought back segregation but that it wasn't for long.

        All this under *the* deadliest stare I've ever been given by anyone, I was honestly expecting her to go all vampire on my ass. Disgusting behaviour!

  58. Nosher

    Nudity != Porn

    I don't get it. Since when did fuzzy images of simple nakedness, i.e. of people in their *natural form* equate to pornography?

    "por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē): Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

    OK, so some people might get off on that sort of thing, but porno it is not, and thus I fail to see how any "pornography" law would even apply. The world is losing touch with reality...

  59. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    False claims

    PaulK claims we "have the right not to be blown up in mid-air or crashed into a building".

    That's news to me. Sure we would expect and hope not to be involved in a mid-air explosion such as Iran Air 655 or be flown into a building such as the El Al flight from Schipol in 1992/3. Those of us who remember the ~30 years of real terrrosim caused by the IRA did not claim we had a right not to be blown up in Brighton hotel, on Horse Guards Parade, in offices at Canary Wharf, etc, etc. Nor did we wish to bomb the their safe haven back to the stone age. We got on with our lives as normal.

    We are surrounded by gutless abject cowards, and that is not just the politicians and their hangers-on.

  60. ratfox

    Do these people know about CT scans

    And did anybody ever saw a porn made out of one?

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Your point being...?

      Getting a CT scan, presumably to investigate a specific medical problem, is a world away from being exposed to the casual use of "nude" body scanning. At least in the former instance, the medical professionals may have read the relevant notes and have done their homework, whereas in the latter instance, most of the panic about introducing "nudie-scans" stems from a bunch of "intelligence" people not having done their homework or even the apparent bare minimum required of them in their day jobs.

  61. Richard Porter

    Under 18s

    "the scheme currently being piloted at Manchester airport will not involve the scanning of any children under the age of 18."

    The obvious flaw in this has been pointed out above, but if these images are secure, not stored and can't be captured why shouldn't under 18s be scanned? And why should you lose your entitlement to privacy when you reach 18? OK there might be a paedophile operating the machine, but what's the big deal? It could be some other pervert who gets turned on by fuzzy outlines of over 18s (or over 80s for that matter).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I hope there's no log in here.

      I think the reason children (including the ones in full time work and paying tax - but that's another gripe) are excluded is because they don't have a choice. Whereas we of 18 or older, don't either. Something like that.

  62. This post has been deleted by its author

  63. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There are measures that could be taken

    your average digital camera and phone camera picks infra red (film the emitter on your TV remote at home). Bank of them round the screen would prevent photos

    Fingerprinting each image. There are plenty of companies claiming they can put an invisible watermark on images which can be read even after an image is edited, cropped and saved. Let the staff know the images will be tracked back to them and they will get charged.

    But doubt the scans will be good enough to pick up the fuse wire sticking out the bum of the terrorist.

    @ J 3 - Why would they attack America? America was funding their terrorist activities.

  64. David Stever

    Aussie Airport Privates Police Outrage?, will any of these scanners end up in airports in Australia? New South Wales? Sounds like a clear violation of their idiotic porn laws. I can hardly wait for the suits to roll out of law offices around the country, in the coming months.

    Can I get a bag of popcorn while I wait?

  65. Mick Sheppard

    Child Terrorists?

    The scanners are at the security barrier right? If so just get a friendly child to go through with you. They can be going on a different flight, just be wearing your explosives in their clothes. Once you are through, take them to the toilet, extract the explosives and say goodbye. They go off safe and sound, you blow up an airliner.

    Of course no terrorist would think of doing this so we are all safe. How long is it going to be before the general public gets their head around the idea that all you get if you build a better mouse trap is smarter mice. Its up to us, the public, to stop them infringing our liberties and wasting our money like this.

This topic is closed for new posts.